Democratic Northwest. [volume] (Napoleon, Ohio) 1869-1894, 1887-02-24
THE NORTHWEST
WASHINGTON LETTER
WAsHINaToN, D. c. Feb. Is, 1887

WAsHINGToN, D. &. Feb. 1S, 1887.
The sensation of the past week on
Capitol Hill was the Presidents veto of
one of the most reckless specimens of
legislation that was ever presented to
any Congress. "The Universal Pension
bill. mot that his action was sur
prise to those who have watched his
course in regard to pension matters, for
he has shown, on several occasions al
ready that he has the courage to do his
duty. But as Representative Springer
said, no man ever filed the office of
President before Mr.. Cleveland, who
would have had the boldness to veto
such bill which had passed both
Houses of Congress by more than two
thirds majority, and which had so pow
erful sentiment at the back of it.
Echoes of congratulation have been
coming back to the President from all
parts of the country, and he has heard
plenty of censure from the partisans
who have learned to regard the war as
their personal legacy. But he will have
the praise, approval and gratitude of
the great mass of the people Of all Sec
tions, the tax-paying civilian and the
of the North and South. q i s+s5t
The reading of the Presidents message
explaining his reasons for the veto
commanded close attention from the
House Of Representatives. Many Con-
gressmen are now unable to say what
their future action will be until
they have heard from their cOnstitu-
ents. 1t is thought, however, that the
bill could not be passed over the veto,
for many members who voted for it
have been surprised since at the con-
demnation it received from people
among all parties.
Should this remarkable pension bill
become law,it would give pension to
every ex-Union soldier who can not earn
the sort ofliving he would like, in other
words, to every man who in the Feder-
al army and is yet alive, 1t would give
pension to every drunkard and shift
less loafer who was in the army for
ninety days, even if his disability is
due solely to his own vices. 1t would
give premium to mendicancy and in
dolence, for nothing convinces man
that he is unable to work like showing
him that he can live without 1t.
And then think of the millions after
millions Of the peoples money that such
q bill would waste. 1t would double
the pension, burden of the United States,
making it $50, 900, 900 ayear. It, would
make the roll call of pensioners larger
than the Federal army ever was and
four times as large as the whole stand
ing army of England. b, r ~ 81.
The Republican members of Congress
have made but little comment upon the
subject. The veto message seems. to
have taken their breath. Representa-
tive Stalnecker, ofNew York, thinks
the message is the ablest State paper of
Mr.. Cleveland's term. Said he, ait
takes up the bill, section by section,
and just tears it to tatters. In stating
his reasons for the veto, he has built q
fort around him which it will be pretty
difficult to Storm" +,ean.s.
A western congressman, who was
speaking of the Presidents courage
said, ,''my admiration for him was new
er great until now. He has turned his
face against sentiment before which
all parties have bowed, and if he is sus-
tanned by Congress, this incident may
be the turning point of a popular reac-
ton against the abuse of the whole PEN
sion business"
Another enthusiast over the Presi-
dents pluck said, "It is the greatest
and the best thing that Cleveland ever
did. 1t required just such man as he
to put firm foot down against 3 system
of legislation which threatened to
swamp this Government" Representa-
tive Oates, of Alabama. remarked that
this veto would make the South solid
again. .,9a
Indeed there was no limit to this PEN
sion business and there appeared to he
nobody with courage enough to say
where it should stop. OF course the
President has not fixed o final limit to
this kind of prenicious legislation, but
he has shown himself equal to the stu
alton. He has drawn the attention of
the country to the abuse in such q way
that the people who pay the taxes will
begin to think it over.
If he had signed this Pauper Pension
bill, he would doubtless have been
called upon during the, year to sign q
supplementary bill-a bill pensioning
all men who wanted to enlist in the
Federal army, butwho were physically
unable or were needed at home by de-
pendent families. Why not? If all
men who enlisted, and who want more
for support than their present. in
comes, are entitled to pensions, why
should not all men be equally deserving
of pensions who wanted to enlist and
could not? yF